]]>Beliefs about “sexuality” and LGBT in particular have been the subject of news coverage recently, due to hundreds of Muslim parents in Birmingham protesting at the actions of their children’s school senior leadership.

The United Kingdom is a multicultural society. The Muslim community is by no means the only community here, and while we encourage constructive, respectful debate of ideas, we condemn one community’s opinions and beliefs being forced upon others, no matter how big or small.

We, the undersigned, are inheritors of a scholarly tradition which from its inception enshrined a methodology for ensuring peaceful coexistence of different peoples, customs, beliefs and even legal systems. Whether it was different religious minorities having judicial and civic autonomy, or different schools of thought among Muslims having overlapping jurisdictions, tolerating differing opinions to relative degrees is in the DNA of Muslim scholars, and something our wider society today would do well to learn from.

One such thing we urge policy makers and executors to pay close attention to is the important distinction between facts and values. It is a fact to say that some people regard same-sex relationships as appropriate, due to their philosophical and moral views; and some people do not—just like it is a fact that some people regard eating meat to be appropriate and some do not. But to go beyond the facts into saying “It is OK and normal to…” is in the realm of values, which should not be imposed on people who disagree.

The types of relationships a person or community regards as good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate, normal or abnormal, are not the result of hard facts, but a product of many interacting beliefs and cultural norms about, for example, the purpose of life, desires and impulses, and conceptions of love, among other things.

Passionately believing in a cause or moral standpoint is one thing, but then enforcing it on others is unacceptable.

There is a clear and unambiguous acceptance in law that the primary givers of philosophical, moral and ethical values to children are their parents. Schools—or anyone else for that matter—may only educate in these areas on behalf of the parents.

When there is a conflict between the philosophical, moral or ethical positions of parents and teachers, schools must respect this and ensure teachers do not transgress the fact/value boundary mentioned above. This includes ideologically or socially-constructed norms which some may passionately believe to be universal facts whilst others do not—such as concerning “sexuality” or “gender”.

It goes without saying that we likewise affirm the rights of those who disagree with our opinions to do so without fear of insult, bullying or any type of oppression whatsoever. However, we also expect the same in return—particularly not being subjected to state enforcement of values and philosophical convictions.

We should respect and tolerate our differences, without the enforcing of some people’s positions on others, especially children.

Add Your Signature

If you are an Alim/Alimah, scholar or Imam and would like to add your signature please fill out this form

Your name*

As you would like it to appear

Email address and/or phone number*

This will be kept hidden. We will not share your details with any third party without your consent. This is only so we can contact you to confirm your identity.

(For messages of support please use the comment section at the bottom of the page)

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/editorials/joint-statement-of-muslim-scholars-imams-on-lgbt-row-in-schools/feed/648106Yes, they ARE encouraging children to “be gay” in Schools. Or bisexual, pansexual, asexual, transsexual, hetero-flexible, heterosexual…https://www.islam21c.com/opinion/yes-you-can-make-a-child-be-gay-in-school/
https://www.islam21c.com/opinion/yes-you-can-make-a-child-be-gay-in-school/#respondMon, 24 Jun 2019 19:00:47 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=45748The previously hidden face of "No Outsiders" that the media does not show

]]>‘No Outsiders’ is a two-faced project; the public face shows it as an innocent attempt to gently steer people away from all types of xenophobia. The shocking true face, however, is something you must search to find as you will not see it in the media or hear it from teachers.

It started as a government-funded research project in 2006 with the stated aim of “developing effective means of challenging heteronormativity in primary schools”.[1] Half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money was used to work out how to stop “heterosexuality” appearing normal, and to replace it with recently invented, fringe social constructs like ‘queer sexuality’ and ‘gender theory’. It is specifically targeted to the youngest school children – where they are at their most impressionable age – before the natural process of puberty would, in the vast majority of cases, make opposite-sex attraction and the male-female distinction seem self-evidently normal.

And it is not only theoretical; despite their frequent claims in the media, the aim is also to facilitate expression of ‘homosexuality’ and ‘transgenderism’ as normal behaviour. A 2008 ‘No Outsiders’ seminar was titled “Queering the Body; Queering Primary Education.” [2] From the summary:

“The danger of accusations [by critics of LGBTQ+ beliefs] of the corruption of innocent children has led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire – and that it is therefore not about bodies. Yet, at a very significant level, that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people.” [2]

The negative implication presumably being that anything less than fully open expression and physical manifestation of same-sex desires or transgender feelings will teach the children that repression is expected; the opposite of the aim of the programme. One of the topics discussed was:

“How might we create primary classrooms where gender-queer bodies and queer sexualities (for children and teachers) are affirmed and celebrated?” [2]

As early as 2007, gay-identifying teacher and ‘No Outsiders’ researcher Andrew Moffat had produced a programme called ‘CHIPS’ (Challenging Homophobia in Primary Schools), which drew repeated criticism from those opposed to promotion of LGBTQ+ beliefs to children. When the completed ‘No Outsiders’ programme was rolled out, they had disguised essentially the same content by piggybacking the Equality Act 2010. This hides the true, purely LGBTQ+ motive and allows them to claim their programme is legally required to be taught, when in fact it is discretionary and Moffat’s programme is only one of any number of ways the recommendations in the act could be met.

It has also made the ‘No Outsiders’ programme a Trojan Horse. The inclusion of other minorities, of either religion, ethnicity, or disability, makes it easy to claim that the programme is really a gift for them, that they must accept this gift, be grateful and uncritical of it. Anyone from those groups that object to the LGBTQ+ content is shut down by calling them a hypocrite, as though they had begged for a programme to enhance their group’s acceptance but now refuse the same benefit for others.

Invariably, when describing the ‘No Outsiders’ and ‘CHIPS’ programmes to the media, Mr Moffat will show the mildest of books, ones that include cute cartoon animals not fitting into a group because they are a different colour or shape and how they overcome that. To address the LGBTQ+ element, he shows ‘Mommy, Mama, and Me’, where two women simply care for a child and no mention is made of their marital status — they look like they could be friends or sisters. [3] It will be stated that the programme merely highlights the existence of diversity when it is really, much more than that.

Reading the final ‘No Outsiders’ academic paper, the principle researchers come across as hostile to the non-LGBT-identifying majority, bordering on paranoid:

“…our data revealed the many ways in which these people [referring to those not believing in or identifying as LGBT] are actually constantly coming out in schools, unconsciously asserting their majority status through small clues: the casual and unrestrained use of pronouns, stories and photos of partners, etc.” [4]

“…assumptions also include a belief that the normative is natural and essential rather than socially constructed.” [4]

Having such an obvious chip on their shoulder – and a personal agenda so strong it blinds them to the meaning of the word ‘normal’ – should surely rule them out when it comes to who we allow to create projects for the most vulnerable of children.

Whilst the world goes about its normal day, fringe elements like these take offence and half a million pounds to undermine and change beliefs, starting by ‘queering’ our children. Among themselves, they say:

“…disrupting this heterosexual matrix is a wider social justice project that broadens possibilities for all children.” [5]

Yet not declaring the true intention of this project when the media asks has denied society the opportunity to have a choice whether we actually want our children to be encouraged to “broaden” beyond “heterosexual” relationships. This duplicitous behaviour to deceive the majority proves it is not a sincere “social justice project”.

General Harms

Many of the large number of books with accompanying lesson plans can be broadly classified as ‘overcoming the challenge of being different’. On the surface, this seems like a good idea, but even the most benign stories are a double-edged sword. The children are taught that it is always bad to discriminate between what is accepted as normal and what is considered abnormal, which of course lays the groundwork for throwing out any concept of an accepted ‘norm’. It will become clear why this is deliberate.

Being a non-conformist is shown as essential for the hero of the story’s personal fulfilment and happiness. Anyone who objects, usually a parent, is portrayed as being utterly unreasonable until they come around to the child’s way of thinking in the end, which they invariably do, with smiles all round, often a celebration, and a sense that everyone is much better off because the child defied the parents’ wishes or society’s accepted norms. This is all opposite to the vast majority’s concept of parental responsibility and what they expect from schools; to train our children to behave with values and virtues that have been within fairly stable boundaries for thousands of years. The LGBTQ+ campaigners would claim this is a liberation in the aspects they are interested in, but what about the other aspects where we would hope children respect their elders and conform to their religion and society? Any amount of collateral damage done to families and society is of no concern to them.

The Vital but False “You can only be Born Gay” Dogma

The most crucial point of underlying ‘No Outsiders’ dogma to bear in mind is the often-repeated claim that “you can’t make someone gay – it’s just the way some people are”. According to the American Psychological Association, “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation”, so it would not be surprising for them to believe that. [6] Moffat will undoubtedly believe that in every classroom there will be children who have been ‘born gay’ and will start to have same-sex inclinations during their primary school years as he did. The generally accepted scientific position, on the other hand, is that it could be nurture as much as nature, not a gay gene:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.”

So much depends on accepting the false ‘only born gay’ theory. If true, they can make a good case that this would supersede any religious ethics that a parent might try to paint over ‘their child’s true nature’. It creates a belief that there is no need for safeguards as, no matter how much promotion, it is entirely safe if it is ‘impossible to make someone gay’; hence, most parents are relaxed about LGBTQ+ promotion. If someone exposed to the material goes on to ‘come out as gay’, it will be said they were already gay, and that it merely helped them to express their true self. It forms the basis for believing that any small sign of same-sex attraction is proof that the person must have been ‘born gay’ and should be encouraged to join the LGBTQ+ community in identifying as some form of non-heterosexual inclination. Also, it would be said that any therapy used to work with someone who wants to understand or resist same-sex attraction is going against their essential true nature, and LGBTQ+ advocates have succeeded in having such therapy made illegal in many places. The theory also serves to justify a higher level of LGBTQ+ promotion in a community with very few people identifying as gay, bisexual, pansexual etc, or with values or ideologies opposing the acceptance of these recent definitions of behaviour. After all, if it is naturally occurring across humanity, there ‘must be’ an equal proportion of ‘gays’ in every community, so more combating of prejudice and encouragement for people to be their ‘true self’ is needed until there is an equal number of open ‘gays’.

The “Queering” of Same-sex Attraction

The ‘No Outsiders’ programme is not theoretical, but rather a practical education for the supposed pre-existing “gay children”, teaching them that having any same-sex attraction is an absolutely normal feeling, that it is called being “gay” (or other “queer sexuality”) and it is to make their environment free of any hostility so that the child will have an utterly trouble-free landing in their “gay” identity. As they said in the seminar: “How might we create primary classrooms where gender-queer bodies and queer sexualities (for children and teachers) are affirmed and celebrated?” 3 Moffat and Co want to provide the gay children welcoming arms to save them the challenges they endured, and I have no doubt that in this respect they are of genuinely noble intentions.

However, we are not talking about one or two children per class; more like 50%. The problem is the huge gulf between the number of people who experience occasional thoughts of same-sex attraction and the number who currently identify as “gay”. Statistics of same-sex attraction vary wildly but a recent study in Germany found only 45% of young adults never have any same-sex attraction whilst only 2% have solely same-sex attraction. [7] The number of people who identify as “gay” varies between polls but has typically been close to the small number of people who exclusively have same-sex attraction. Currently, the norm is to consider oneself “heterosexual” even if having occasional same-sex thoughts, and the disparity between these figures is the “heteronormative” aspect the campaigners want to destroy. Only when “heterosexual” is no longer accepted as the default position will there be no LGBTQ+ outsiders.

That is what “queering primary schools” aims to achieve. Queer Theory claims that we are all on a rainbow-like sexuality spectrum; we just did not know it. If every one of those 55% of children who might one day experience any same-sex attraction has someone at their elbow encouraging them to believe it, then they must accept one of the recently invented LGBTQ+ definitions and the number of LGBTQ+ identifying people would skyrocket. The content of the ‘No Outsiders’ programme appears designed to draw out any sign of belonging to one of their categories and to push that definition onto the child before they have a chance to naturally settle, as most otherwise would, into a straightforward and reproductive so-called “heterosexual” adult life after the vagaries of hormonal adolescence have passed.

If you still doubt this could be their intention, bear in mind it is consistent with a global drive by LGBTQ+ activists to stop male-female relationships being considered normal. As early as 2006, an educational blog was describing “heteronormativity” as a “social evil”. [8] Schools in Australia have been teaching that it is wrong and “heterosexist” to believe that it is normal to be so-called “heterosexual”. [9] In UK schools, LGBTQ+ trainers organisation ‘Educate and Celebrate’ use the phrase “smashing heteronormativity”. [10] You can also do your own research; a quick Google of the term ‘No Outsiders + heteronormativity’ brings a flood of evidence highlighting that this is the method of the programme. For example, this research paper: “‘No Outsiders’: moving beyond a discourse of tolerance to challenge heteronormativity in primary schools”.[11] It is, in their view, not enough for people tolerate “homosexuality”.

When Moffat or Anderton Park School head Sarah Hewitt-Clarkson dismiss parents’ concerns of indoctrination, saying it is just about “teaching equality and tolerance”, the public understands it to mean teaching children to treat all people with equal respect, and they give their support under those false pretences. However, the programme’s method to achieve the equality they want absolutely is an indoctrination; to force every child in primary school to unquestioningly believe male-female relationships are not “normal”, to instead make every kind of imaginable “sexuality” seem normal, and to create an illusion that there are no outliers, when if that was actually true, there would be no need to change what has always naturally been considered the norm for sexually reproducing creatures.

It makes absolute sense that this programme is the LGBTQ+ method to reach an understandably desirable goal; it is the most logical approach. However, it is simply too big of an ask to expect the community to accept social engineering of our sexual norms and replace them with other people’s norms. We need to say, “we understand but I’m sorry we simply cannot accommodate this request”.

‘No Outsiders’ is just Key Stage 1 in Queering Society

After the groundwork in making suggestable primary age children doubt so-called “heterosexuality” has been done by ‘No Outsiders’, the wider programme is continued in high school and by the media. The practical advice on issues like how to make anal “sex” more pleasurable is already given in some compulsory high school sex education classes, backed up by media outlets such as the youth-specific BBC Three. They have long been encouraging same-sex experimentation with a multitude of articles and programming, promoting it as healthy and essential to discover “who you really are”, explicitly telling youth to try “gay sex” in case they miss their true self, and that:

“When it comes to sexuality, there’s never been a more exciting time to be alive. Straight, gay, pansexual, asexual, transsexual, hetero-flexible, bisexual; the endless list of sexual identities surely indicates society is heading in an ever-more inclusive direction, right? Perhaps we’re finally moving towards a time where people are less afraid to live a life that reflects who they really are.” [12]

A recent YouGov poll, [13] discovered that the efforts of programmes like ‘No Outsiders’ and the media onslaught are having the desired effect. While 96% of over 60s said they were “heterosexual”, only 83% of under 24s did. Only 1% of over 60s identified as “gay” or “lesbian” compared to 10% of under 24s. The question arises: is this a giant leap of progress liberating humanity’s latent so-called “homosexuality” or is it merely the taking away of confidence in people’s “heterosexuality” – a new confusion? The clue is the startling lack of certainty over their sexuality. 92% of heterosexual over 60s said they were “completely heterosexual”, while only 55% of heterosexual under 24-year-olds were as certain of their “heterosexuality”. The headline from the BBC Three article about this data had a celebratory feel: “It’s OK guys, just admit it – half of you are not 100% straight”. And they are not stopping there:

“…despite the significant shift in numbers of younger people identifying as something other than heterosexual, there still seems to be one area of sexual activity where the shift in attitudes are lagging behind – men experimenting with men.” [12]

“Lagging behind” is the key phrase here, ‘more progress to be made’ then. It should be clear ‘No Outsiders’ is not about teaching “heterosexual” children to accept a little diversity; it is part of a wider drive to a “queer” society – as they freely admit when not in front of a camera – by “queering primary schools” to specifically teach children that they are on a confusing spectrum of “sexuality”, a theory invented less than 20 years ago and being made up by fringe academic-looking activists as they go along.

Can Same-sex Attraction be Encouraged?

Any doubter of the programme will be challenged with the question, “So do you think it’s possible to make a child gay?” This is misdirection when the term they use is “queering primary schools”, and clearly it is proving possible to convince many people to identify as some type of “queer sexuality” by pushing them to place great significance on any fleeting same-sex attraction that they might occasionally feel. In fact, it is not even true to say it is impossible to make a child have same-sex attraction. Boys whose first sexual experience is abuse by a male are known to have an increased likelihood of later experiencing same-sex attraction and identifying as gay. [14] Therefore, a person’s first sexual experience could be key; if it is with the same sex, it could form a pattern, a phenomenon called “homosexual imprinting”. This extract from an article published by the American Academy of Paediatrics shows how convoluted earliest sexuality usually is.

“Attraction occurs in late childhood/early adolescence and can precede or occur concurrently with a first romance or first sexual experience. It is not uncommon for adolescents to experience same-sex attractions; in fact, most gay youth experience opposite-sex attractions, sometimes before same-sex attractions. Previous studies report that more than 80% of same-sex–attracted girls and 60% of the boys acknowledged opposite-sex attractions.” [15]

When a number of children will experience same-sex attraction, the number choosing to identify as “gay” could be made to vary, depending on how attractive “being gay” is made to seem. In the child’s years before sexual attraction, when boys find girls annoying and ‘yucky’ and vice-versa, the books shown to the class describe “gay marriage” as between two best friends who want to spend the rest of their lives having fun together. This will encourage a pre-sexual child to idealise a same-sex lifestyle before opposite-sex attraction is a factor within them to sway their choice.

Writing this, I can imagine some people repeatedly thinking “so what if they want to be with the same-sex?” The point is why should they, from five-years-old, be artificially and repeatedly pointed towards same-sex relationships? Why not let children witness the world that is actually around them and allow nature to take its course? This brings me onto what the lessons contain.

Which ‘No Outsiders’ books the school uses varies from school to school, but one of the books Moffat recommends, ‘Prince Henry’, is a story of a prince whose father tries to arrange a marriage by inviting suitable matches for him to consider. [16] The book celebrates Henry going against his father’s wishes and marrying his male servant with whom, over preceding pages, he “had become very good friends, did everything together and shared the same interests”. The ‘No Outsiders’ programme suggests this book for Key Stage 2 children (7-years-old and above). [17] Children of this age have little concept of sexual attraction and the book makes no mention of sexual attraction being a pre-requisite or factor in choosing who to “marry and spend the rest of your life with”. The inevitable take away is that the friend each child in the class is closest to at that time – their best friend – would obviously be a good candidate for a life partner. As the children are still “asexual” beings and no sexual acts are shown, there is nothing to steer them away from thinking marriage between friends of the same sex is merely a continuation of their current status of best friends. It is not hard to imagine girls especially being pleased with the idea of spending the rest of their lives with their ‘BFF’ (best friend forever).

A commonly used book ‘And Tango Makes Three’, [18] is about two male penguins raising a chick. On the surface, it is innocent stuff, neither in the book nor in reality, does any “gay sex” occur, but still penguins have long been considered “gay icons” for occasional, usually short term, same-sex pairing behaviour. The reality has been found to not be as LGBTQ+ affirming as hoped. A lack of females causes them to pair with a male and practice flirting, nest building, and egg protecting until they can find a female partner. [19] They are not “gay” in any sense but are again used to portray a desexualised same-sex marriage. Ironically, giving them a chick to raise – used as an example of gay adoption in class discussions – diverts the penguins from otherwise finding a female mate. In the ‘CHIPS’ lesson plan, suggested discussion with the Year Two class (six to seven-year-olds) includes:

“Roy and Silo are two male penguins who are in love. What is the name for two men who love each other? (gay men). Do Roy and Silo affect the other penguins in any way? Do they make other penguins gay? (Of course not! You can’t make someone gay – it’s just the way some people are)…” [21]

The take away for a six-year-old who does not have a broad understanding of the love under discussion, but recognises the closeness of the penguins in the pictures being similar to how they are with their best friend, is that the words ‘love’ and ‘gay’ could clearly apply to them.

The next book in the ‘CHIPS’ programme, recommended to be read a week later, is ‘King and King’, where, much like ‘Prince Henry’, a prince is encouraged to get married to who is considered suitable by his mother. He tells his mother, “I’ll marry. I must say though I’ve never cared much for princesses”. [20] Many six-year-olds are likely to identify with this, as many boys will have ‘annoying’ sisters who dress up as princesses and the last thing they could imagine is choosing to spend their lives with someone like that, rather than with their best friends. Two princes would have so much more fun. To reinforce the fun involved, the role-play involves the children performing a full gay wedding in the classroom including children as the “registrar, best man (for both grooms), photographer, witness etc”. [21] Discussion advised is as follows:

“Are there any other fairy tales where a prince marries a prince and they live happily ever after? Why not? Could a princess marry a princess and live happily ever after? Of course! Note: if someone brings up how they can have children open it out to the group. Could they adopt? Maybe one of the princes already has a child. Note: There is a sequel book “King and King and family” where the two kings adopt a little girl. Do the king and king look unhappy about being gay? No. Is anyone calling them names or making them feel unwelcome? Of course not.” [21]

Same-sex marriage could be an extremely easy sell to pre-pubescent children. If around 50% might have some same-sex attraction thoughts as they grow, it is not hard to imagine what could happen next when they get to that age. Even after adults have been leading a so-called “heterosexual” life, statistics of life in prison show up to 75% of women and a high percentage of men have same-sex relationships when in a situation where it is normalised. [22] In their early years of burgeoning sexual maturity, a child who has been, for years, repeatedly encouraged to believe a same-sex lifestyle could be for them will have much easier access to same-sex experimentation because regulations and parents do not keep same-sex children apart during sleepovers, camping trips, school trips etc. On the last page of ‘King and King’, the two boys are shown kissing. The children learnt that to have affection for a best friend is called “love” and that they are “gay”; they are shown that their relationship is affirmed by kissing. Is it any surprise that part of the complaint of the Birmingham parents was because two nine-year-old boys were seen kissing after the class at a school? Presumably to affirm that they are best friends, or “gay lovers”, as they are being taught to call it.

After seeing some of this insidious non-consensual social engineering project’s true face, take two minutes to watch how the BBC portray what I have described above. The MPs, journalists, most parents and, in fact, many teachers have only seen the public face, please share this article widely (and the second part to follow), so the truth is better known.

The second part of this ‘No Outsiders’ article will discuss the books and lessons relating to “queering” of children’s sex with gender theory.

In September 2020, Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) will be changing in English schools. Whilst Relationship Education (RE) will become statutory in primary schools, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) will be statutory in secondary schools. The right to withdraw, which is currently unrestricted, will not apply to RE, meaning a school has to teach and your child has to attend the classes. However, whilst you will be able to request approval from the head teacher to withdraw from the ‘Sex Education’ part of RSE, you will not be able to withdraw from the ‘Relationship Education’ part. This restricted right to withdraw only lasts until your child turns 15, and then the right to decide transfers to your child.

Given these changes and the types of resources taught in schools, parents need to engage with their children’s schools whilst they are planning these subjects.

The presentations go through:

The changes to SRE

What the government’s guidance states about the need to involve parents in planning these subjects

How to influence and create positive change

What questions to ask and who to ask them to

How to maximise the potential for positive change

The practical steps to effect positive changes in schools

It is in no one’s interest for conflict to engulf our children’s schools, and therefore, we ask parents to take the first steps to offer their time to help shape what is taught. We also expect schools to positively reciprocate.

These short presentations will equip parents with the tools needed to work in partnership with schools and create a positive change.

In March 2017, the Government passed the Children & Social Work Act (2017) which resulted in the creation of a new compulsory subject in all primary schools – Relationships Education (RE), as well as a new statutory subject in secondary schools called Relationships & Sex Education (RSE). Following the consultation, it was announced that the new content delivered in RE (primary) and RSE (secondary) would be subject to public consultation.

In December 2017 the Department for Education opened their public ‘Call for Evidence’ to consult on the content of these new subjects. The public consultation closed in February 2018 and received over 23,000 submissions.

In July 2018 the Secretary of State for Education, Damian Hinds MP, announced the publication of its Draft Guidance on the content and delivery of the new subjects. He also announced a change in policy regarding the Government’s previously stated intention to retain parents’ right to withdraw their children from the ‘sex education’ aspects of RSE (see below). In addition to this, he announced that rather than making PSHE compulsory, the Government was instead creating a third new compulsory subject, Health Education, which would be taught in both primary and secondary schools.

Most recently, the Government announced a public consultation on the content of the new Draft Guidance, which closes on 7th November 2018. It further announced that this guidance and the obligation to deliver the new subjects would now come into force in September 2020 (rather than September 2019 as previously planned).

Although many of us are rightfully sceptical of government-initiated consultations, as the government often launches consultations to evidence its pre-agreed findings. We believe this consultation, which many of us took part in, had a unique impact.

Firstly, the consultation received an unprecedented 23,000 submissions (18,000 online and a further 4,500 letters and emails). The vast majority of responses were from parents. There have been calls for the Government to publish a full report and breakdown of responses, something which is in the interests of transparency, yet the government has failed to publish the results. In its place a brief summary of the online submissions (78% or 18,000 of them) has been published by Ipsos Mori (as an annex to the consultation document).

The 4,500 submissions made by email and post (representing 22% of the total submissions) have so far not been reported at all. However, even the small number of results the Government has so far published feature some significant insights into the strength of feeling against the Government’s LGBT and sex education agenda, in favour of a more pro-life and pro-family ethos. There are signs that the Government cannot ignore the strength of feeling of respondents.

Primary Schools

The Government has conceded that teaching LGBT ideology to primary school children is contentious and that there is far from agreement in favour of it. The government alludes to the ‘many’ (without quantifying the percentage of respondents) that wanted the new subjects to “raise awareness of different types of family”. They also admit that ‘opinions were also split regarding when children should be taught about LGBT relationships’.[1] They admitted that only “a small proportion of respondents suggest that primary schools should teach about gender and sexual identity, but this was a controversial viewpoint with others disagreeing that it is appropriate to teach about these issues at primary school”.[2]

The results of the consultation also reveal that “opinions were split […] as to whether it is appropriate to teach any subjects related to sex education at primary school”.[3]

It is further noted that “where respondents support this, consent education (1,408, 9%) is the most widely supported subject area”.[4]

The alleged need for all primary school children to learn urgently about ‘consent’ as a preventative measure against child abuse has been one of the primary justifications for compulsory Relationships Education. This result shows that only a small minority, even of those who wanted any kind of sex education at primary school, thought that this was important.

This document states,

“When asked the most important subject areas to be taught in Relationships Education at primary school, the most frequently mentioned is relationships with family (7,778, 52%), including building strong relationships with family members and awareness of different family compositions. It is likely that the volume of responses on family compositions is driven by ‘campaign’ responses.”

It is encouraging that a large number have attempted to turn Relationships Education into something more positive by stressing the importance of family life. However, the report suggests that the LGBT lobby has also been campaigning to introduce the idea of ‘diversity’ of families to children, as a way of introducing young children to the LGBT lifestyle. It is not specified what proportion of those lobbying for family education favoured this kind of approach.

Secondary Schools

We should be encouraged by the fact that the most common response by adult respondents to what ‘the most important subject areas to be taught in Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) at secondary school, is commitment (5,746, 39%), with an emphasis on traditional marriage. It is likely that the volume of responses on commitment is driven by ‘campaign’ responses’.[5]

Successive governments have always sought to use the term ‘campaign responses’, to undermine responses that do not align with both its narrative around a policy area and what it intends to implement. By using this term, they question the authenticity of opinion by alluding to campaigns influencing people to respond in particular way. This cannot take away from the strength of feeling that the current proposals are an assault on the values of vast sections of the population who want a more traditional understanding of marriage taught to children.

From what we can see of the responses alluded to by the government, there is no majority consensus on what should be covered within RSE in secondary schools.

Of young people responding to the consultation (representing 13% of overall respondents), only 31% (668) favoured teaching about gender and sexual identity.

Even if there were a majority in favour of any particular approach or subject to be covered in RSE then the Government is not revealing what it is. Either way they have no basis on which to claim there was any ‘consensus’ in the consultation in favour of the approach that they are taking in the draft guidance.

Because this summary does not include the 4,500 (22%) of total responses made by email or post these findings are also skewed and unreliable.

Even if we were to take the responses the government has selectively provided, there is no support in favour of LGBT teaching but there is a large proportion in favour of teaching about family and normative marriage.

There are a number of positive supporting statements in the government’s consultation response which point to the impact our submissions made at the last call for evidence.

The government reiterates the right of parents as the primary educators of their children,

“We recognise that parents are the primary educators of their children, particularly where relationships and sex are concerned, and want to ensure that schools work with parents on the design and delivery of these subjects. Schools will be required to consult with parents on their Relationships Education and RSE policies, which will minimise any misconception about the subjects and enable parents to decide whether to request that their child is withdrawn from sex education.”[6]

The government has disappointingly watered down the right of parents to withdraw from RSE in secondary schools, the government assures us that parents “may request that their child be withdrawn from some or all elements of sex education in RSE and this should be granted unless the headteacher, taking into account any considerations about the pupil and their circumstances, decides otherwise.”

The government further clarifies that,

“except in exceptional circumstances, the school should respect the parents’ request to withdraw the child, up to and until three terms before the child turns 16.”[7]

So the right to withdraw has been severely watered down.

We are also assured that:

“Secondary schools should engage proactively with parents”

“set out how and when they plan to cover topics included in RSE so that parents can understand clearly, what is going to be taught.” [8]

Existing guidance also mandates that schools consult parents regarding the content, yet experience shows that this is not happening. Although the Government claims that schools, including faith schools, will have ‘flexibility’ in how they teach these new subjects, including coverage of LGBT issues, this will be within the parameters of what the Secretary of State and OFSTED regard as compliance with ‘the relevant provisions of the Equality Act’.

Although there are many points to be made, the following issues capture the main criticisms of the changes to the draft guidance.

The government has refused to allow parents to withdraw from Relationship Education at primary level.

The government has failed to provide any assurances that SRE/statutory science related topics will not be included in RE classes, neither has it clarified in detail what will be taught in RE.

The government has gone back on its commitment to provide a legal right to withdrawal from RSE classes at secondary level. Instead it has given head teachers the right to veto parental requests to withdraw. This completely contradicts the legal position of parents as the primary educator.

The guidance is hugely vague and allows teachers to interpret its requirements.

It undermines the right of parents to decide when and how to impart sensitive information on sexual matters.

It normalises LGBTQ relationships.

It encourages children to experiment with and question their biological sex under the gender agenda.

Schools must engage in real and not make-believe consultation with parents. Parental views must be taken into account when making decisions, in relation to the resources, how it is taught, which organisation comes in to help deliver programmes etc.

Schools have to be mandated to communicate with parents about when, how and what is being taught to their children in SRE, RE, RSE, health education and statutory science elements of ‘sex education’.

Questions

Please answer in your own words, otherwise your response may be ignored as a ‘campaign response’.

For each question, you are asked to rate how strongly you agree / disagree with the proposed content. If there is any concerns over the framing of the questions it is best to choose ‘strongly disagree’, or at least ‘disagree’, as your response — even if you agree with the rest of the points in that section.

10. Do you agree that the content of Relationships Education in paragraphs 50-57 of the guidance is age-appropriate for primary school pupils?

– strongly agree

– agree

– neither agree or disagree

– disagree

– strongly disagree

Please briefly explain why you have given this answer in the text box below.

The section referred to can be found in the draft guidance,[9] and an example of the paragraph referred to in this question is below.

“Teaching about families requires sensitive and well-judged teaching based on knowledge of pupils and their circumstances. Families of many forms provide a nurturing environment for children. Care needs to be taken to ensure that there is no stigmatisation of children based on their home circumstances and needs, to reflect sensitively that some children may have a different structure of support around them, e.g. looked after children or young carers.” (paragraph 55)

Although this may read as innocuous and a common-sense approach to teaching, the paragraph is vague and given the context in which these changes to SRE (Sex and Relationships Education) are justified, it is clear that we are being asked to agree to a statement that will be used, amongst other things, to normalise LGBT relationships to our children.

We should speak about the primacy of parents as educators of their children. We raise and teach our children according to our values, and we cannot accept teaching them that a relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman (a legally recognised marriage), and raising children based on that relationship, are on par with a marital relationship of a man and a woman raising children. Doing so fundamentally undermines our right to raise our children according to our own values.

– Please note this paragraph relates to the teaching of primary children (5-11).

– Parents are best placed to determine what is age-appropriate for their own children.

– Discussing LGBT families necessitates speaking about LGBT relationships, we believe primary aged children should not be exposed to sexual discussions of any kind.

– Parents should be the ones to decide when it is appropriate to raise these discussions with their children and their hand should not be forced by what is taught to them at school, as this dictates when and how these discussions should happen.

– The guidance needs to be clear that LGBT relationships, transgender issues, pornography, contraception, sexually transmitted infections/diseases and abortion will not be discussed at primary level.

– Much of the language within these sections is vague and ambiguous, as a consequence parents will be concerned that they can be interpreted very broadly, given this concern, parents should be allowed to withdraw from Relationships Education.

11. Do you agree that the content of Relationships Education as set out in

paragraphs 50-57 of the guidance will provide primary school pupils with sufficient

knowledge to help them have positive relationships?

– strongly agree

– agree

– neither agree or disagree

– disagree

– strongly disagree

Although we believe everyone deserves to be treated respectfully and kindly, there is a huge difference between respect towards different people, no one should be taught to agree with relationships which profoundly opposes one’s moral values. So although we would agree that the person who lives with someone else outside of marriage or a man who lives with a man or a woman who lives with a woman are people our children may encounter, it does not mean they should be taught these are morally acceptable relationships, as that goes against the moral values we wish to inculcate in our children, and doing so is partaking in the social engineering of our children, something we do not consent to schools doing.

Children need to be taught that bullying any other child is wholly unacceptable for any characteristic, whether that be on account of race, religion, class, bodily characteristics or home life. But this should not be used to push acceptance of LGBTQ lifestyles.

There is also scope for discussing the absence of other relationships in the guidance, such as with parents, siblings, extended families and the importance of marriage, which is still the gold standard institution in raising and nurturing children.

12. Do you agree that paragraphs 61-64 clearly set out the requirements on

primary schools who choose to teach sex education?

It is unclear from the guidance, what the difference is between SRE currently taught at primary level, and RE, which is planned to be taught from September 2020? There needs to be a clearer distinction so that parents are better informed of what their children are being taught and so that schools do not teach beyond what they are required to and package that as statutory. As parents will not have a right to withdraw from RE (which is a huge mistake), it is all the more important for both schools and parents to know what is statutory and what is not.

We should push for the government to allow parents the right to withdraw from SRE classes at primary level. Schools should not include non-statutory SRE teaching in science or the new RE classes, Ofsted needs to inspect schools to ensure this is not happening including speaking to parents. Schools should publish their consultation process so that it is transparent and they should have to publish how they have consulted parents in deciding how SRE is taught at primary level. They should also write to parents a term before they start teaching sex education, informing them they have a legal right to withdraw.

The draft guidance suggests,

Schools must also ensure that their teaching and materials are appropriate having regard to the age and religious backgrounds of their pupils.

This has been included in SRE guidance for many years, but it is not happening everywhere. The religious background of pupils is not considered when deciding how to teach SRE. More needs to be done to ensure these are not mere words on paper but are also applied in practice.

The guidance clearly accepts that there are developmental differences in children, this is one of the main reasons why a one size fits all teaching of SRE is not effective. Parents ought to be empowered to teach their children in line with their values rather than schools taking over this role.

13. Do you agree that the content of RSE in paragraphs 65-77 of the guidance is

age-appropriate for secondary school pupils?

– strongly agree

– agree

– neither agree or disagree

– disagree

– strongly disagree

Who will decide what is age-appropriate? As parents are the primary educators of their children, it should be parents. Age-appropriateness is built on many factors including the actual age of the child, their developmental level, and their faith background (their values and upbringing). Who will ensure that these broad set of criteria are factored into what is being taught?

The guidance tackles sexual identity and gender fluidity as though they are innate or fixed. For young people getting to grips with who they are, and being bombarded with confusing messages about gender and sexual preference, this can cause a lot of confusion. Some young people may develop same-sex attraction which they will grow out of, by addressing sexuality as fixed, it can encourage the affirmation of that identity, something they are likely to grow out of.

14. Do you agree that the content of RSE as set out in paragraphs 65-77 of the

guidance will provide secondary school pupils with sufficient knowledge to help

them have positive relationships?

– strongly agree

– agree

– neither agree or disagree

– disagree

– strongly disagree

The range of relationships mentioned will ultimately cloud the waters as to the importance of marriage (between a man and a woman) which research suggests brings overwhelmingly positive results to children as it creates stability, that other relationships fail to provide children.

There is no evidence suggesting co-habiting or homosexual relationships provide the stability and positive outcomes that a traditional family unit does. In fact, there is evidence showing negative outcomes.

Schools should not be encouraging children to experiment with their gender ‘identity’.

Parents should be allowed to bring their children up according to their values, this may sometimes look different to the values the government expects, but if parents are the primary educators of their children and we have the freedom to raise our children within the boundaries of our faith values, and within the ambit of the law, there is no problem.

15. Do you agree that paragraphs 36-46 on the right to withdraw provide

sufficient clarity and advice to schools in order for them to meet the legal

requirements?

– strongly agree

– agree

– neither agree or disagree

– disagree

– strongly disagree

Parents had been promised that they would have the right of withdrawal from RSE in secondary schools, but this has been effectively taken away and this right has been effectively placed at the discretion of the head teacher. What happens if the head teacher refuses? Does the HT have to provide a reason? Can the parent appeal? Who to?

Again, the distinction between SRE and RSE in secondary schools is not clarified, so that parents can know which aspects they are allowed to ‘request’ withdrawal from.

This has to be clarified by the guidance and schools have to be transparent as to what they teach and where, whether in SRE, Science or RSE.

16. Do you agree that the content of physical health and wellbeing education in paragraphs 86-92 of the guidance is age-appropriate for primary school pupils?

Please answer as you see fit.

17. Do you agree that the content of physical health and wellbeing education as set out in paragraphs 86-92 of the guidance will provide primary school pupils with sufficient knowledge to help them lead a healthy lifestyle?

Please answer as you see fit.

18. Do you agree that the content of physical health and wellbeing education in paragraphs 93-99 of the guidance is age-appropriate for secondary school pupils?

Please answer as you see fit.

19. Do you agree that the content of physical health and wellbeing education as set out in paragraphs 93-99 of the guidance will provide secondary school pupils with sufficient knowledge to help them lead a healthy lifestyle?

Please answer as you see fit.

20. Do you agree with the approach outlined in paragraphs 36-46 on how schools should engage with parents on the subjects?

– strongly agree

– agree

– neither agree or disagree

– disagree

– strongly disagree

Please reiterate that you are disappointed that the ‘right’ of withdrawal has been downgraded to a ‘request’ judged by the discretion of the head teacher.

21. Paragraphs 108-109 in the guidance describe the flexibility that schools

would have to determine how they teach the content of their Relationships

Education/RSE/Health Education. Do you agree with the outlined approach?

– strongly agree

– agree

– neither agree or disagree

– disagree

– strongly disagree

There has to be a balance between clear guidance and flexibility for schools to formulate RE/RSE/Health Education to cater to the reality of the school. This flexibility has to be real and include parental views through meaningful consultation. Parents are best placed to convey their opinions about what should and should not be taught, this must take into account the faith and values of parents and children. If a significant proportion of children are from a particular background, the school should have to tailor teaching to take into account the faith background of those pupils.

22. Do you agree that paragraph 44 of the guidance provides clear advice on how

headteachers in the exceptional circumstances will want to take the child’s SEND

into account when making this decision?

– strongly agree

– agree

– neither agree or disagree

– disagree

– strongly disagree

‘SEND’ stands for ‘Special Education Needs and Disability’ and paragraph 44 relates to the parents right to request withdrawal of their children from sex education:

For the vast majority of pupils with SEND, including those with education, health and care plans, their SEND should not be a consideration for the head teacher in deciding whether to grant a parental request, however there may be exceptional circumstances where the head teacher will want to take a pupil’s SEND into account when making this decision. The approach outlined above should be reflected in the school’s policy on RSE. Whether a child has Special Educational Needs or a disability, parents, and not the headteacher, are best placed to decide whether a child should be withdrawn from RSE of not.

Why should SEN or Disability have any bearing on whether a head teacher should be allowed to veto a parent’s decision to withdraw?

24. Do you have any further views on the draft statutory guidance that you would like

to share with the department? Do you think that the expectations of schools are clear?

Please include this information in the text box below.

Use this space as an opportunity to re-iterate your main concerns or add anything you have not mentioned previously.

25. Do you agree that more is required on financial education for post-16 pupils?

Please answer as you see fit.

26. The department believes that primary schools should be able to access appropriate resources and training in order to teach effectively. Do you agree that the resources and support currently available to primary schools will be sufficient to enable them to teach the new subjects?

The training and resources should be decided in partnership with parents so that programmes are culturally sensitive.

27. The department believes that secondary schools should be able to access appropriate resources and training in order to teach effectively. Do you agree that the resources and support currently available to secondary schools will be sufficient to enable them to teach the new subjects?

The training and resources should be decided in partnership with parents so that programmes are culturally sensitive.

28. Do you agree that the draft regulations clearly set out the requirements on schools to teach the new subjects of Relationships Education, RSE and Health Education?

The three subjects plus SRE in primary schools have to be better defined than they currently are.

29. We are required to set out in the regulations the circumstances in which a pupil (or a pupil below a specified age) is to be excused from receiving RSE or specified elements of it. The draft regulations provide that parents have a right to request that their child be withdrawn from sex education in RSE and that this request should be granted unless, or to the extent that the headteacher considers that it should not be. Taking into account the advice to schools on how headteachers should take this decision, in paragraphs 41-46 of the guidance, do you agree that this is an appropriate and workable option?

No, it will create greater conflict between the head teacher and parents, especially if head teachers refuse the request to withdraw. The right to withdrawal should be reinstated and not diluted and replaced with an unworkable alternative which will create conflict between schools and parents.

30. Do you have any other views on the draft regulations that you would like to share with the department? Please include this information in the text box below.

Please include any other comments on the draft guidance.

31. Tables (6-8) in section F of the draft assessment set out the assumptions we have made in estimating the cost burden for schools to implement the new requirements. Do you agree with our assumptions and the estimated additional costs to schools?

Please answer as you see fit.

32. Are there any other cost burdens on schools, which you believe should be included in the regulatory impact assessment?

Please answer as you see fit.

Other organisations have also provided guidance on answering the consultation questions:

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/current-affairs/sre-consultation-deadline-last-chance-to-have-your-say/feed/138582Sexual harassment “epidemic” at universitieshttps://www.islam21c.com/news-views/sexual-harassment-epidemic-at-universities/
https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/sexual-harassment-epidemic-at-universities/#commentsMon, 06 Mar 2017 13:57:10 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=25473An investigation carried out by The Guardian has uncovered what it calls ‘epidemic levels’ of sexual harassment at UK universities. It reports almost 300 claims against staff being made in six years, which victims and lawyers have called just “the tip of the iceberg”.[1] Freedom of information (FoI) requests were sent to 120 universities, and ...

]]>An investigation carried out by The Guardian has uncovered what it calls ‘epidemic levels’ of sexual harassment at UK universities. It reports almost 300 claims against staff being made in six years, which victims and lawyers have called just “the tip of the iceberg”.[1]

Freedom of information (FoI) requests were sent to 120 universities, and it was found that at least 169 allegations of sexual harassment, misconduct and gender violence were made by students against staff, and at least another 127 allegations by staff against other staff, from the years 2011-2017.

The investigation also learned that “scores of alleged victims” were dissuaded from making official complaints, withdrawing the allegations or settling for informal resolutions. This is in addition to many others saying they never reported their harassment for fear of the impact on them.

“These numbers are shocking, but sadly, from our experience, are just the tip of the iceberg. Sexual harassment of students by staff members has reached epidemic levels in British universities. Most universities have no effective mechanism to stop staff from pressuring students into sexual relationships, and when it happens, any sort of disciplinary action is pretty much non-existent. Those in charge are often colleagues who have many incentives not to intervene.

“Young women are often terrified about the consequences if they make a complaint about a staff member. So often, when they do, the university’s chief concern is to downplay any wrongdoing and protect its own reputation by keeping the whole thing quiet.”

One junior female member of staff at a university in southern England who has been trying to raise concerns about sexual harassment in her department for years told the Guardian,

“The worst thing is that there are many people who are suffering under this professor. Simply putting in a formal complaint will not do anything but make life hell for me and other women. He will never be fired. Everyone I have spoken to confirms this.”

A female graduate student who was sexually assaulted by a senior academic said,

“They offered me a settlement on the condition that I drop out of the programme and accept that no internal investigation on the member of staff would take place.”

“When I refused, they were forced to conduct an independent investigation; however, the investigation didn’t feel independent at all. In the end, none of my complaints were upheld, despite all the evidence of the member of staff’s behaviour towards me. The investigator concluded that the senior member of staff and I were ‘friends’, and that he had simply tried to ‘help’ me. The member of staff still has his post in the institution, he is still teaching and supervising students, whereas I am not even attending the campus, and I am completing my studies remotely.”

The most highly regulated interaction in the Shari’a

Cases like these and others highlight a very important wisdom for which the interaction between the two sexes has been described as the most highly regulated one in the whole of the Shari’a.[2] The vices that occur when people are not careful to maintain a professional working distance between strangers of the opposite sex in public spaces are too numerous to treat with cures, so they are prevented as much as possible.

Furthermore, if there is a case of accusations of sexual harassment or otherwise unacceptable behaviour between two parties, this presents an extremely difficult scenario for those trying to administer justice. Judges or other disciplinary bodies face a debilitating dilemma: on the one hand they face the danger of letting someone who may be harming people continue to do so; on the other they face the danger of ruining an innocent person’s life based on false accusations.

This is due to the fact that most disputes about sexual harassment will be one person’s testimony against another, without the possibility of establishing guilt or innocence with certainty. Due to this danger, many wise institutions, organisations, societies and even cultures practice the safeguarding that the Shari’a and other wisdom traditions call for – the restriction of private correspondence or meetings between two individuals of the opposite sex.

The Prophet sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam said,

“No man should be alone with a woman unless there is a mahram with her.”[3]

“No [unrelated/unmarried] man and woman are alone together except that Satan is the third present.”[4]

Universities as well as all other social spaces would do well to pay heed to such wisdom, not only to protect women from harassment but to also protect men from false accusations. We are reminded of a number of young men who have committed suicide due to false accusations of rape from upset female “friends”.[5]

Of course, some people will stubbornly reject wisdom and intelligent practices from outside of what is popular in their current cultural milieu, let alone something from “foreign”, routinely demonised Islamic culture and practices. Such people should try and reflect on the simple fact of what brings benefit and repels harm, and reflect upon what would have happened had their ancestors been as stubborn when faced with beneficial aspects of other cultures (including Islamic) that have been incorporated into “British” culture today.

“And We have not sent you [O Muhammad] except as a mercy to the worlds.”[6]

Be it something as ‘trivial’ as personal hygiene or as serious as the presumption of innocence or as world-changing as the scientific method; had Britain refused to incorporate “foreign” Islamic concepts and practices in the past, the present would have turned out very differently. Likewise, those concepts and practices of Islam that are yet to be appreciated and incorporated – such as the protection of society from vices that arise from laxity in male/female interaction – should also be considered in order to fashion a better future for all.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/news-views/sexual-harassment-epidemic-at-universities/feed/425473Church of England’s turmoil over “gay marriage report”https://www.islam21c.com/theology/church-of-englands-turmoil-over-gay-marriage-report/
https://www.islam21c.com/theology/church-of-englands-turmoil-over-gay-marriage-report/#commentsThu, 16 Feb 2017 20:08:03 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=24987Church of England facing “split” The Church of England has been said to be in “turmoil” after its General Synod (legislative body) debated for hours last night on a “controversial” report produced by Bishops after three years of conversations, costing a reported £300,000.[1][2] The controversy around the report was due to its opening a debate ...

The Church of England has been said to be in “turmoil” after its General Synod (legislative body) debated for hours last night on a “controversial” report produced by Bishops after three years of conversations, costing a reported £300,000.[1][2] The controversy around the report was due to its opening a debate around same sex relationships and its official reinforcing of the status quo of officially ordained marriages being between one man and one woman.

After hours of debate the motion to “take note” of the paper was rejected as it failed to reach a consensus among the three houses, despite getting a majority of votes overall. Although they reinforced the Biblical notion of marriage being between a man and a woman, the result of the meeting has been presented as a victory for LGBT movements seeking to move the Church closer to officially blessing “gay marriages” among the masses and its own ministers.[3]

The report—which was presented as an opportunity to air differing views—was described during the debate as seeking to “straddle two positions” that “cannot be reconciled”;[4] presumably marriage according to Christian tradition based on the Bible and societal pressure to accept homosexual relationships. The issue of same sex “marriage” has long been subject to controversy among the Anglican church—which is said to have 85 million members worldwide.

On the one hand, there are some member churches that have pushed for accepting popular societal and legal reforms on the definition of “marriage”. On the other hand, there are a great many who have tried to resist pressure to essentially change their religious understanding and interpretation as a result of outside pressure and ideology concerning sexual normativity.

A chilling statement

Among the quotes and soundbites dissipating throughout the news coverage was a particular statement I found somewhat troubling. It was attributed to the Reverend Bertrand Olivier who identifies as “gay”. Arguing in favour of the church normalising and endorsing same sex relationships, he told the BBC that “the church needed to reflect modern society.”[5]

This is something we hear often in the context of the Muslim community and Islām needing to change to fit the ideology and tastes of Western modernity. However, what is chilling about this statement is the very reason that established western Christianity has possessing somewhat of a bad reputation in the first place in popular culture today.

We obviously believe that the Prophet Jesus Christ (ʿalayhi al-Salām) would never condone the injustice and oppression that the various established Christian churches and empires have committed over the centuries—an abandonment of which has been seen as ‘enlightenment’, ‘progress’ and ‘reformation’ by western society at large. That is because established Christianity was not acting faithfully to the message of the Messiah but was, in fact, “reflecting modern society” wherever it was—“modern” simply meaning “contemporaneity”.

Whether it be femicide and institutionalised hatred of women,[6] racism,[7] the trans-Atlantic slave trade, imperialism, colonialism, an opposition to empirical enquiry, or whatever other unsavoury doctrines and actions of Western Christendom we today see as abhorrent, it is difficult to resist the idea that “the church” of those times was merely reflecting society during those times.

People may comfort themselves today with the thought that today the church and, as a result, the western world, by convenient historical accident happen to have come up with the ‘absolute’ benchmark of what is right and wrong. But is that not what a great many who commit injustice throughout history also thought?

“And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allāh . They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying.”[8]

Say, [O Muḥammad], “Shall we [believers] inform you of the greatest losers as to [their] deeds? [They are] those whose effort is lost in worldly life, while they think that they are doing well in work.”[9]

Anyone acquainted with human nature and history, particularly western history, realises that we often have the annoying and arrogant habit of treating our social attitudes and cultural norms as absolute fact claims about nature or reality. Ignoring the distinction and tension between objectively verifiable facts (what is) and values (what ought to be), or as the ancient Greeks presented it, “Physis” and “Nomos”, leads to many committing injustice thinking they are doing good.

In the Christian context, people throughout history referred to their scripture to legitimise cultural or societal norms of the day, as is being argued by some today, which amounts to little more ontologically than their collective whims and desires (which every wisdom tradition is supposed to yield to a higher reasoning) or power, which is the worrying bit. Yesterday, power was explicit threat of violence and coercion, whilst today it is the control (or at least influence) of popular opinion and thinking through more subtle types of epistemic violence, such as shaming and bullying, to coerce others into accepting something.

Muslims should not rejoice

As for Muslims, I do not think we should rejoice over this recent turmoil of the Church of England because it is not occurring in a matter originally determined by cultural norms but in a matter of truth. The debates occurring are essentially on those parts of their scripture and tradition that enjoy a consensus among practically all wisdom traditions, about the nature of the human being and the harmful effects of letting one’s own desires determine what is right and wrong. As Sam Allberry, a pastor who identifies as “same sex-attracted” said in last night’s debate, arguing for the orthodox view of marriage:

“Sexuality is not a matter of identity for me…my primary sense of worth and fulfilment as a human being is not contingent on being romantically or sexually fulfilled, and this is liberating…I used to be bullied at school for being gay…I now feel I am being bullied at Synod for being same sex-attracted and faithful to the teachings of Jesus on marriage. I am grateful the report reaffirms the traditional doctrine of marriage; I am concerned we are already preparing to pastorally undermine it.”[10]

Those Christians that are proposing that their values and morals derived from their scripture need to be moulded to fit “modern society” (rather than the other way around) should think about whether they actually believe their scripture is from their creator in the first place. As Muslims, we cannot blame them for not having true yaqīn (certainty) in their received body of scripture due to their fundamental view of “faith” being “trust without evidence” rather than “warranted propositions” based on clear evidence (burhān, bayyina, dalīl) that Muslims are accustomed to.

We should be grateful that the Islamic legal tradition gives a just and proportionate legislative weight to cultural and societal norms (‘urf), whilst having a defined legal and interpretive methodology taught by the Prophet himself (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) to determine, broadly speaking, the intent of the Lawgiver. This is very important to remember when people inevitably, as a result of the aforementioned arrogance, force western or Christian notions, arguments and history onto Islām and Muslims.

Those looking for something to fit around their desires will find a way to legitimise their desires or irresistible societal pressure. But those who realise the danger and inherent weakness of the human self (nafs), must never forget the need to tame it and subject it to a higher purpose.

“But as for he who feared the position of his Lord and prevented the soul from [unlawful] inclination, then indeed, Paradise will be [his] refuge.”[11]

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/theology/church-of-englands-turmoil-over-gay-marriage-report/feed/124987Unisex Toilets in Schools – The New LGBT Battleground?https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/unisex-toilets-in-schools-the-new-lgbt-battleground/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/unisex-toilets-in-schools-the-new-lgbt-battleground/#commentsThu, 19 May 2016 16:05:36 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=21869The humble toilet; a place of privacy, a place of personal grooming, and a place to relieve yourself. Well, not for many schools inspired by the LGBT movement. A number of schools that have undergone new build programmes or are planning to do so in the future are taking the opportunity to remove their segregated ...

]]>The humble toilet; a place of privacy, a place of personal grooming, and a place to relieve yourself. Well, not for many schools inspired by the LGBT movement. A number of schools that have undergone new build programmes or are planning to do so in the future are taking the opportunity to remove their segregated male and female toilets and replace them with ‘unisex toilets’. The usual form of these toilets is not literally a communal bathroom shared by both sexes – that would be too outrageous for the majority of parents. The usual form is a communal wash-basin area which is not an enclosed room and is largely visible to the main corridor of the school. The toilet cubicles themselves are fully enclosed from the ceiling to the floor but can be used by either gender.

The reasons for this change are often couched by schools in terms of cost savings exercises and improvements to behaviour. Of course the floor space needed for a ‘unisex toilet’ is considerably lower than the floor space required for two separate, enclosed toilets. It is claimed that having a wash-basin area visible to the corridor will reduce incidents of bullying and vandalism by virtue of staff walking past in the corridors. It is also claimed that forcing girls to share facilities with the generally more rowdy and messy boys will encourage boys to be cleaner and better behaved. But one of the main drivers, if not the main driver, is the relentless onslaught of the LGBT movement in schools to impose their outlook on sexuality on the rest of the community. They consider that having segregated toilets clearly demarked as male or female creates anxiety for transgender students who do not want to be assigned to the sex they were born as. The LGBT movement is not even prepared to tolerate separate male, female, and ‘unisex toilets’ for the fear that embarrassment will be caused to transgender students who are seen walking into the ‘unisex toilets’.

The argument that ‘unisex toilets’ improve behaviour in schools is a very lazy one. Putting boys next to girls does not automatically improve their behaviour and cleanliness. All it does is lead girls to feel more vulnerable and intimidated. If schools have a problem with vandalism or bullying in segregated toilets it is their responsibility to deal with it as it is their responsibility to deal with it in any part of the school through an effective behaviour policy supported by sanctions and rewards. CCTV cameras can be positioned to monitor behaviour around the wash basin areas of segregated toilets and regular cleaning of toilets should occur throughout the day where cleaners can report problems and CCTV images can be checked for culprits of vandalism. If schools have an effective anti-bullying policy all students will know who to talk to if they are targeted in an enclosed segregated toilet. The idea that having a unisex wash basin area open to the corridor that can be effectively supervised by staff casually walking pass from time to time and peering over is naïve.

The reality is that little thought has been given to the well-being of children when considering this proposal. The founder of Childline, Esther Rantzen, described the proposals as a ‘recipe for disaster’ and stated unequivocally, ‘Unisex toilets in schools should be avoided at all costs’.[1] Children in secondary schools in particular are often extremely self-conscious over the changes their bodies are going through during puberty. Menstruating girls in particular need their privacy and the last thing they need is to feel fear and anxiety in heading towards a shared facility. Consider an 11 year old girl having to negotiate her way past a group of strapping 16 year old lads in full swing with their bad language and banter. Imagine the humiliation she would feel if she needs to deal with some facial blemish like acne or readjust her blouse at the mixed wash basin. Now consider an 11 year old boy dying to relieve himself and finding a group of cackling 16 year old girls applying make-up and resenting his presence. In both cases there are likely to be large numbers of boys and particularly girls who refuse to use the shared facility and would rather wait until they reach home. This will be extremely unhealthy for them, as well as leading to lack of concentration in class and greatly reduced participation in after school activities. We have not even begun to discuss how ‘unisex toilets’ completely ignore the need of Muslim women to wash before the prayer and remove their covering. They will now be faced with the intolerable choice of exposing themselves to the opposite gender in clear contradiction with their faith or, worse still, abandoning the prayer, again in clear contradiction with their faith. The problems it creates are numerous and the only perceived benefit is that the extremely rare case of a student who is struggling to come to terms with their sex or gender will no longer have to feel the slight unease before walking into a segregated toilet.

The segregated toilet is one of the last places in our society where the natural desire for certain types of separation of men and women is still tolerated. It allows men and women to relieve themselves in comfort without the embarrassment of having to share a facility with the opposite sex. At the heart of this proposal is a strong desire by the LGBT movement to blur the lines between the sexes and remove any sense of mysticism which exists about the opposite sex. They want to blur the distinction between sex and gender, and transform sex into a spectrum rather than its binary division and what better place to start than the young, impressionable minds of our children?

It is the responsibility of every parent to take an active interest in the conduct of their school and vehemently oppose unisex toilets. Parents should join forces with other parents and raise their objections directly with the Headteacher. This is an issue which pans across different groups in society: men and women who want to preserve their dignity; different religious groups with a faith or value-based objection; people who see these proposals as morally objectionable and an attack on the social fabric of society; or just people who feel that some in the LGBT movement are imposing their views on sexuality in an aggressive, uncompromising manner.